Some interesting info on the speculation it was shot down:
A defence expert has told the BBC that shooting down a plane at 10,000m (9.7 miles) would have required a long- range surface-to-air missile - possibly guided by radar.
That suggests it is unlikely it could have been downed by a portable air defence missile, or Manpad, which has a much shorter range.
The only other possibility is for an aircraft at that height to be downed by a fighter carrying air-to-air missiles.
The US will have access to satellite imagery that should be able to identify ultra-violet plumes if a long-range surface-to-air missile was fired.
Our startup lets you track the event in real-time, and has thousands of people actively confirming and refuting content as to its validity. There is a lot of fake info floating around on Twitter (and even some mainstream media organizations), so act with caution. http://grasswire.com/#/newsfeeds/1e4b388a-8ea7-461d-8acf-ba1...
Confirmed: Malaysia Airlines confirms it has lost contact with #MH17 from Amsterdam. Last known position over Ukraine. Was shot down, all passengers dead.
The pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine deny shooting it down, and are blaming the Ukrainian armed forces.
The Ukraine Defense Ministries claim it was shot down by a BUK missile, which the separatists do have, and it would reach. We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane: http://pastie.org/9400258. (I translated it, so forgive me for any inaccuracy).
Message from the militia. "In the area Torrez just downed plane An-26, lying somewhere in the mine" Progress ". Warned same - not to fly in "our sky." And here is the video the confirmation of the next "ptichkopada." Birdie fell for waste heap, the residential sector is not caught. Peaceful people do not suffer. And also have information about the second downed aircraft, like the Su. "
even though the original post has been deleted from VK
This is very worrying, an AN-26 does not have the service ceiling of what I would expect the MH flight to be travelling at. A trip seven would be about 2500m higher.
Its also smaller. However, if they identified the target and aimed the missile visually, its possible that they mistook a 777@10000m for an An-26@7500m. I doubt the rebels have much in the way of air search radar. If this was a rebel misidentification, what probably happened is that they fired the missile line-of-sight with the seeker active.
> The Ukraine Defense Ministries claim it was shot down by a BUK missile, which the separatists do have, and it would reach.
Unless I'm mistaken from the description, it takes 3 vehicles, each serving a separate purpose, to utilize the BUK missile system - with a complex series of operations and coordination between all the components (that can only be done by trained operators).
The evidence against the anti-Kiev militia seems to only show the missile vehicle component. And it's unknown if it was even fully operational (aside from being drive-able on the roads).
> We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane
If my understanding is correct (from his other posts), the original info/report came from a post on their social site, where someone saw a plane coming down and assumed it must have been a military plane shut down by their side - and promoted it as such.
EDITED: per Wikipedia it's more complicated (see ADDED below), assuming as speculated elsewhere in this thread that they used visual means for air search, or I would note another albeit unlinked radar system:
"The Buk missile system was designed to surpass the 2K12 Kub in all parameters and its designers including its chief designer Ardalion Rastov visited Egypt in 1971 to see Kub [SA-6, very effective in the Kom Kippur War 2 years later] in operation. Both the Kub and Buk used self-propelled launchers developed by Ardalion Rastov. As a result of this visit the developers came to the conclusion that each Buk transporter erector launcher (TEL) should have its own fire control radar rather than being reliant on one central radar for the whole system as in Kub. The result of this move from TEL to transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) was a system able to engage multiple targets from multiple directions at the same time."
If they have a vector to feed the fire control radar, and it then succeeds in acquiring the target, I would expect it to work. Our anti-radiation missiles, plus the system's missiles until the most recent one having semi-active homing (fire control radar must paint the target), put a premium on this sort of arrangement.
ADDED: I too am just learning these fine details; further down, as quoted by powertower in reply to this posting, the above ideal wasn't implemented in full, there's a normal 2-1 ratio of TELARs to TELs. And think about the implications of the TELARs being obviously more expensive: the normal ratio is unlikely to be always observed, the maintenance demands of TELARs and a high TELAR to TEL ratio is going to be higher, etc. etc.
The vehicle shown in the deleted post, and the same one driving on the road, appear to be a pure TEL vehicle from the BUK system, without an integrated radar (not a TELAR vehicle)...
"A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle."
So a TEL vehicle would also require a feed from a TELAR or a TAR vehicle.
Though I'm just learning about all this, so I could be completely wrong.
Why was this civilian plane over Ukraine to begin with?
I seem to recall (can't find the link now) that Ukraine declared their airspace closed to civilian aircraft after the Ukrainian Troop Transport plane was shot down recently.
Even if the airspace was open, it seems highly risky to fly over a battle-zone anyhow where direct radio communication with troops on the ground may not be possible, and opens a wide door for an accidental grounding, if not on purpose.
According to BBC, major airlines like Air France and Lufthansa are only now rerouting their flights to avoid the conflict zone. So, until now it was assumed there was no risk in flying in that altitude.
The rebel army (there isn't really any government to "declare" anything in eastern Ukraine right now) warned that it was a no-fly zone, but Malaysian probably assumed they were referring to the Ukrainian air force, which had been shelling eastern Ukraine fairly heavily. A recent FAA notice warned of the potential of misidentification of civilian aircraft over eastern Ukraine, but surely nobody thought they would shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky.
That being said, touching eastern Ukraine with a 30,000 ft. pole would probably be less than wise at the moment.
> A recent FAA notice warned of the potential of misidentification of civilian aircraft over eastern Ukraine, but surely nobody thought they would shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky.
Yes, but without any direct communication, no organized Air Traffic Control, and without tracking satellites, it seems very easy for ground troops to mistake a civilian transport with a military transport.
Seems ludicrous for anyone to attempt to fly over Ukraine right now.
>Yes, but without any direct communication, no organized Air Traffic Control, and without tracking satellites, it seems very easy for ground troops to mistake a civilian transport with a military transport.
not to mention, ground troops in a civ-war-like situation may not have the technology to detect a civilian aircraft's transponder, nor even expect one to be in the area (after all, it's more-or-less a war zone right now).
This is now starting to appear very-much-so as an accidental grounding. The rebel's posted on a social network bragging about grounding another military troop transport, then quickly deleted the post as soon as the news broke about a civilian airline going down over Ukraine.
I couldn't find the source for the second part of your translation - "we warned them ...". Has it been removed? I am curious to see if AN-26 was also shot down, or they mistook Boeing for AN-26.
EDIT: got the answer in this thread - post was deleted.
This could take out a 777 trivially either. I wouldn't put it past Putin to give control of this to his proxy soldiers or fuck up trying to shoot down what they detected as a Uke fighter or cargo jet. This is the system the Uke military has been blaming on shooting down their jets.
>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes.
He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."
Would you not put it past the Ukraine backed neo-nazis, which even the state-funded BBC now admit exist, trying to widen the conflict and drag third parties into the fight?
You are making an ad hominem argument. Just because there exists a mention of neo-nazis by a relevant news organizations does not LOGICALLY imply that group, or those people associated with that group, shot down the airline. On the other hand, knowing a Buk was deployed in the region where the plane was shot down (and the fact it was shot down in separatist territory to boot) is a much more compelling line of reasoning than what you've put down here. I get that you may be angry about this, but that doesn't justify making up a rationalization about it.
FWIW, I don't like neo-nazis or people who shoot down innocent civilians who weren't even involved in the area (other than being over it) to begin with. Whoever did this will be determined. Are you OK with accepting the outcome when it is?
An independent investigation needs to look at this tragedy and figure out what happened. I think everyone would agree on that.
I just think it's ridiculous that minutes after the event, some Ukranian officials start finger-pointing and people want to believe them because they have been conditioned to associate Russia with bad things.
Up until yesterday, 99% of the people reading this thread had probably never even heard of a Buk, yet suddenly everybody's an expert. Might as well accept neo-nazis could have done it, after all, look what Brevik did to those kids in Norway and his reasoning.
Yes, this tragedy may be due to the separatists but it could also easily have been a mistake by the Ukrainians. In fact, a British major was just on TV saying that they could have accidentally shot down the plane because their air defence is "slack".
At the end of the day, look at this thread and see how quickly people are to blame Russia. It must be a Pavlovian response of some sort.
Blaming statements suck regardless of who's at fault (to blame) or who knows the facts about the situation. Unless everyone involved is totally Zen, which is highly unlikely, you are going to get this sort of behavior. The only thing I've been able to come to over the last few years dealing with this is that it only takes ONE person being rational to help a whole lot of others who aren't get settled down enough to talk about it. I think they are called diplomats! :)
We both agree this is wrong, and that's where we have commonality. I hear you about the blaming being laid about. It sucks on top of already a sucky situation.
What I really find distasteful is that the Ukrainian nationalists immediately announce their theories to the press, with no evidence, whilst the wreckage and the bodies are still smouldering.
It smacks of sick political opportunism at a time when all sides should be trying to figure out what happened. The separatists have at least offered a ceasefire for a few days so investigators can come in and bodies can be recovered.
We simply don't know what happened and we should heed the warnings from missing flight MH370 where all kinds of media reports and intelligence turned out to be worthless.
Sadly many parties have an incentive to shape the narrative and they will use anonymous "tips" to push the frenzied media in different directions. Unless there is independent, corroborated and conclusive evidence, we may never know what happened to this flight.
We know Russia has been supplying the rebels with heavy weapons. It's unlikely that Ukrainian pro-Kiev "neo nazis" marched a heavy SAM launcher through rebel controlled territory. Also, in any case, it doesn't follow that because someone is a "neo nazi" they will shoot down aircraft.
> We know Russia has been supplying the rebels with heavy weapons.
More than that, we know the rebels themselves claim to have captured exactly the sort of weapon that would be able to do this (Buk missiles) from a raid on a Ukrainian military base.
>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes.
...
He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."
The stories in which the Donetsk People's Republic -- the initial claim that they had the missiles didn't come from Kiev, though the claim that they had used them to shoot down this plane did -- claimed to have captured the Buk missiles [0] were before this incident (and they've apparently shot down Ukrainian military aircraft recently beyond any altitude that MANPAD missiles would reach), so the furious backpedal and claiming they don't have the technology now is somewhat dubious.
It could, though, be an honest retreat from a propaganda misrepresentation that has since become more of a burden than a benefit.
(Incidentally, I upvoted the parent because even though the claim may be dubious, noting the fact that the claim has been made is a valuable addition to the conversation, IMO.)
Anything's possible, I suppose. But the rebels and/or Russians are the only ones to have shot down any aircraft in this episode so far (so far as I know). And if the goal is to broaden the conflict, a Malaysian Airlines flight is a pretty odd choice when there were numerous other flights operated by big western airlines (British Airways, Lufthansa, etc.) also flying in the area.
There's also the fact that Ukranian officials have specifically said that Russian-backed rebels shot the plane down. We shouldn't accept those statements uncritically, but they're out there and they are worthy of some consideration. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of anyone credible, who is in a position to know, asserting that Ukraine is behind this.
We simply don't know what happened and we should heed the warnings from missing flight MH370 where all kinds of media reports and intelligence turned out to be worthless.
Sadly too many parties have an incentive to shape the narrative and they will use anonymous "tips" to push the frenzied media in different directions. Unless there is independent, corroborated and conclusive evidence, we may never know what happened to this flight.
That's very interesting and unsettling of course. But how would those guys get access to 10km high aircraft destroying weapons? Are they so well backed that they'd have access? Are they active in the same area?
(btw, it's a valid point, no need to downvote. Yes it may seem obvious that it was Russian allies, but it's important to keep an open mind in times of war, as both sides usually play dirty)
Indeed. I was downvoted for bringing this source to the conversation. I don't see how it's not highly relevant to the conversation. I urge everyone to read all reports though with a grain of salt and read reports from all sides.
Indeed I realize that this is Russia Media. I've been monitoring information as it goes by on twitter trying to make the best sense I can of the situation. This report is dated June 29 which is interesting.
2. Subsequently, people in the already autonomous region of Crimea, ethnically/culturally/historically Russian, had a referendum to break-away from Ukraine and then join Russia - especially after the new coup leaders decided to ban use of the Russian language.
I've been following the Russian news somewhat and my parents have been talking to friends/relatives in both Ukraine an Russia, and the amount of outright invention in the official Russian media has been quite impressive.
You forgot illegal use of the Russian armed forces in Crimea denied at the time but admitted later.
Oh, and banning the use of the Russian language was completely invented by Russian TV.
Just curious why the US would play any role in this situation... it's a Malaysian plane, over Ukraine, coming from the EU. Seems like the EU should be tasking their satellite's, or even Russia.
I believe certain agencies in the US (FAA or NTSB etc...) help out other countries when planes crash. Smaller countries may not have the man power or skills necessary to handle a plane crash investigation. Especially if its an America plane, if they find a defect they will ground the fleet (787 Dreamliner for instance).
I have also heard sometimes countries call in the US or whatever EU agency to consult along with their personnel.
For satellites, wouldn't you want the most accurate data anyway? Using US, EU and Russian (even China/India) imagery would probably be better than pointing a finger at the right country/agency and saying we should use their images because the plane crashed in their country.
Probably because the US has by far the most extensive surveillance satellite programme in the world. Not many countries operate surveillance sats at all. France has a few. Israel and Japan have some. I know Britain has none at all and has a deal with the US to access its material.
It's important to have as many sides involved as possible - I wouldn't trust US satellites alone or Russian satellites alone, but I would trust all satellites together. Russia, US, and EU could all try to spin this story in their own ways.
> 16:05 GMT:
> The Donetsk People’s Republic – where heavy fighting continues between Kiev and opposition – has denied reports in the Western media which claim that the Malaysian plane was shot down.
News reports have it that there were 23 US citizens on board. given the situation in Ukraine and the current increasingly stiff sanctions on Russia, this is a very serious matter; either Putin pulls in his claws and abandons the Russian separatists in Ukraine completely, or the matter could escalate into a much worse international conflict.
It's highly likely that this was shot down by terrorists currently fighting in eastern Ukraine. I seem to recall the US being interested in fighting terrorism.
edit: also, I bet dollars to donuts there were US citizens on the flight.
Or are you referring to people who have taken up arms because they no longer want to be part of the Ukraine. Why not simply call these people "rebels" or "separatists"?
Even speaking as a US citizen, I can admit that the actions of some rebels did constitute terrorism. Innocent Loyalist civilians were targeted, for the purpose of political change. It doesn't get much closer to the textbook definition of terrorism than that.
The actions of many national armies in wartime counts as terrorism by application of various textbook definitions was well. That does not make those armies or their soldiers terrorists.
I disagree. However, nobody wants to admit that their team did evil things, so we whitewash. Very rarely do people see anything but black and white when it comes to 'Us vs Them' situations.
Then you are extending the definitions of "terrorist" and "terrorism" to such broad lengths as to make the terms useless for anything except political and propaganda purposes. It has nothing to do with admitting to or denying evil things.
Terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Terrorists use political violence to further their ends, but not everyone who uses political violence is a terrorist.
I read the page. There are no facts contained therein, just someone posting a link to a BBC article about the venerable Ukrainian legal scholar Vladimir Putin's opinion on the legality of the events. Additionally, some other people share their opinions.
You might want to double check that link you posted.
You think those imaging satellites aren't constantly recording everything they see and sending it somewhere? Especially in and around such a hot area as the Ukraine, I'm sure there is near-constant surveillance.
Except there probably aren't quite enough satellites to always have one over that area? Plus, yeah, downlink bandwidth probably wouldn't be sufficient anyway.
Early warning defense systems are configured to look for specific events, particularly missile launch signatures. They would likely be scanning wide areas and automatically record launch signatures, possibly then tasking optical or other sensors on the specific region, in realtime.
Some launch areas are well-known (e.g., fixed land-based silos), some aren't (e.g., mobile launchers, submarines). So a wide-area detection capability is almost certain, though whether this includes arbitrary land surface areas is an interesting question. I'd be inclined to think so.
They're configured to look for missile launch signatures of ICBMs. SAMs are much smaller. Whether they have the sensitivity to detect an SA-11 launch is unknown, but apples and oranges, folks.
Low-altitude SAMs (a/k/a "MANPADS", Man-portable air-defense systems) can be quite small. But SAMs as a weapons class cover a lot of ground.
The Buk missles are ~700 kg (1500 lb), 5.5 m (15.3 ft) solid rocket systems. They're close to a sub-orbital missile system, and might be picked up by an orbital tracking system.
That said, I'm not sure what optical or infrared tracking exists. There's some discussion of SLBM/ICBM detection by the 7th Space Warning Squadron, but it seems largely reliant on ground-based PAVE-PAWS radar.
There was the 1960s MIDAS orbital infra-red detection system, replaced by the Defense Support System:
"The satellites are in geostationary orbits, and are equipped with infrared sensors operating through a wide-angle Schmidt camera. The entire satellite spins so that the linear sensor array in the focal plane scans over the earth six times every minute."
So any given spot on Earth is scanned once every 10 seconds. DSS involved 23 launches, I don't see information on presently active satellites.
There's also the note:
"The DSP constellation may have offered an excellent vantage point for an early warning system against state-centric threats such as missiles, but military analysts warn its ability to collect intelligence on non-state actors is severely limited."
If the plane is 6.2 miles on the ground away and flying at 30K feet (5.7 miles), then basic pythagorean geometry says that a missile has to travel sqrt(6.2^2+5.7^2) = 8.4 miles, which is closer to the number they give?
Ukrainian officials may have said as much -- and they may be right -- but given Ukraine's obvious interest in this situation, it may be a stretch to say that they are capable, on their own, of "confirming" anything about it.
Interfax said it was shot down. Russia - via their ambassador at the United Nations - denied involvement already.
Let's hope this plane won't be the Franz Ferdinand 100 years later.
Edit: I am talking about the US-Russian relationship deteriorating because of the (blamed) intent, not the number of casualties or the strength of the Malaysian army.
Edit 2: Thanks for the links on previous situations like this. Reassuring.
It's overwhelmingly likely to have been shot down by "Ukrainian rebels", who are Russian-backed.
It's not going to be the end of the world unless someone very high profile was on board, but it will further worsen relations with Russia. Malaysia isn't exactly a nuclear superpower. A US airliner would be a lot closer to end of the world territory.
Number of civilian casualties is roughly comparable to those in the past few weeks in Gaza.
>Number of civilian casualties is roughly comparable to those in the past few weeks in Gaza.
That comparison is interesting. What is it about planes that draws so much attention when something like this happens? It is barely news when a couple hundred civilians die on the ground in a war zone, but put the same civilians in the air and the whole world pays attention.
EDIT: Some people have mentioned that Gaza is all over the news but I would make the argument that the civilian casualties aren't what is making news. What is making news is the eruption of hostilities in the first place. For example, compare the coverage of Gaza to Iraq, Ukraine, etc. There have been several times more civilian casualties in numerous other active war zones this month, but they aren't new conflicts so news agencies aren't focusing on them.
1. Almost everyone has an intrinsic fear of flying and any accidents in the air hit that nerve.
2. Everybody knows that living in a war zone is dangerous. Conversely, you know whether you're living in a war zone or not, so most people don't see deaths in war zones as related to their everyday lives.
However, in this case, these people were on a flight between Amsterdam and Malaysia. They weren't involved in a war in any way. So that really hits a nerve. You can image yourself in their place.
A bunch of random people with different life stories together inside a tin can flying thanks to physics' magic exploding fuel at 800km/h. It's something that a lot of people can relate to as millions fly every single day not really expecting to die, specially over a war zone. That's why we pay attention. The massacre in Gaza is pretty important as well, but an entirely different story.
noun
an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people.
verb
deliberately and brutally kill (many people).
"""
Tell me how what happens in Gaza is consistent with "indiscriminate" and "deliberately" as long as only launch sites and weapons caches are targeted and warnings are sent out well in advance, something I haven't heard any other army has ever done so consistently before. (And I will happily tell you that I don't think the Israelis are without fault. I just want this sick twisting of referential frames to stay away from hn.)
Turn on any American news outlet, check the front page of any American newspaper, and you'll see tons of coverage of Gaza. It's all over the place. Wall to wall.
If you aren't seeing it then you either aren't really paying attention, or you don't consume American media and have no idea what you're talking about on this topic.
Well, it's going to be overshadowed by this plane crash for a bit.
People are afraid of flying because they aren't in control. When you or someone you can see is behind the wheel, you have more control, which makes you feel safer (even though having that control makes things more dangerous).
Train crashes are still a big deal, but if you're in a train crash and survive then rescue vehicles/personnel will show up. If your plane breaks up or whatever and you survive, you're almost certainly going to die when you hit the ground. Gravity and velocity are much bigger factors than for trains, in general.
The Asiana plane crash at SFO last year where only 2 or 3 people died as the plane crashed and broke up upon landing is very, very unusual.
Very, very very unusual. I thought it was a relatively low energy crash before viewing amateur video that made it clear that near the end the nose was on the ground and the rest of the plane pivoted around it 270 degrees or more (!). The crash bled off energy in a slow, survivable way.
Sure, but he wasn't talking about coverage but about fear of flying. Very few people are afraid of riding a train in the same sense that many are afraid of flying in a plane. It's an interesting point.
Couple reasons of the top of my head: War is common. Plane crashes are rare. The average CNN viewer doesn't live anywhere near a warzone, but they probably have and are going to ride a commercial flight.
You seen how many people have died in eastern Ukraine recently? 478 civilian deaths, 1000+ injured. 10,000s of people fleeing across the border to Russia. I have family there in kramatorsk. Most action is carried out by the Ukrainian army trying to rid cities from the separatists. Disgraceful. http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21607852-battle-continu...
If it was shot down, it was done with some pretty high-grade weaponry. You can't touch a passenger plane at cruise altitude with a shoulder-mounted RPG.
"Dutch passengers aboard crashed Boeing 777". Curacao Chronicle. 17 July 2014. Retrieved 17 July 2014. "Dutch travel Agency D-Reizen confirms that Dutch citizens were on board. Also, through ANWB Reizen, we learn that about fifteen or sixteen Dutch citizens were on board. It’s about people who have booked at Fox Reizen and SNP, which falls under ANWB Reizen. Tour operator WTC.nl believes it’s between twenty and thirty Dutch citizens who have booked through the site."
This is overwhelmingly likely a false flag operation performed by CIA and the new Ukrainian government to further deligitimize the ethnic Russian population in Eastern Ukraine and put additional pressure on Putin to denounce them or face the disapproval of the entire Western world.
But let's go with your overwhelmingly more sensible explanation since I am clearly just a KGB paid astroturfer and a crazy conspiracy theorist to boot and nothing like that would ever happen in the real world.
There is no motivation for the separatists to do this.
"We don't recognize the current government and want more autonomy. Let's shot down a foreign passenger plane! That'll help our cause!"
But the point I was really trying to make is that there is no "overwhelmingly likely" theory at this point. There are just knee-jerk reactions based on your preexisting world view.
You're assuming it had to be intentional, which is an overwhelmingly unjustified assumption. All it would take is the person in control of the weapon to think it's a military transport.
Most likely, it's an accident. Somewhere else in this thread, there's links to a Russian separatist claiming to have shot down what he thought was a military transport with a Buk missile system that they bragged about having several weeks ago.
This seems to make the most sense. I can buy that maybe Russia slipped them parts of a high-end anti-aircraft missile system. Maybe enough to shoot it at an aircraft they saw. But it's plausible that they don't have the high-end air-search radar and/or the personnel with experience in managing the results of such a radar, or with the experience in operating it in cooperation with an anti-aircraft missile battery, that would allow them to reliably identify aircraft and direct attacks against only against the desired targets. They also likely have reason to be on alert to aircraft coming to attack them.
I would also think that the Ukrainian military is likely to have proper air-search radar and the experience using it to identify aircraft properly. And not much reason to be on high alert for potentially hostile aircraft, since the rebels don't have any, and Russia isn't in the fight on that level now.
I think everyone is assuming it was an accident. Coming at it from the direction of trying to explain why anyone would choose to shoot down a passenger plane probably doesn't help clarify the situation.
> Let's hope this plane won't be the Franz Ferdinand 100 years later.
Don't worry. Malaysia can join forces with Thailand, and then together attack all of their neighbours, but that would hardly make an impact to the "world order".
No, it was not only Austria going after Serbia, but Austria and Germany together going after all of their neighbours, including Serbia, France, Russia, Belgium, ...
Not until Russia started to mobilize to defend Serbia. Australia versus Serbia would've been a minor conflict if it weren't for the various defensive agreements the Great Powers had with smaller states.
If we were to be pedantic here, Austria was losing badly against Serbia for more then a year. At that time it was clear that Austria did not have a standing chance to win against Serbia in any meaningful way without extensive help from other countries, so the conflict couldn't really be qualified as minor.
The things started to change when German army joined with Austrian forces in attack to Serbia, and Bulgaria decided to step in and stab Serbia from behind, but at this point the conflict was already far from "minor" and "local".
I'm scheduled to be on that exact same flight in 10 days, so I'm not thinking very clearly about this right now.
Can a cool disconnected mind give me a rational perspective on this?
Does logic dictate I have nothing to worry about? ("Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place" argument.)
Or does logic say I would be smarter to lose some $$, and book a different airline and route? ("Lighting does strike twice in the same place" argument.)
Chances are they won't fly in the same location. Lufthansa has already rerouted flights scheduled to go over around the eastern Ukrainian airspace, I can't imagine Malaysian not following suit. It's not like they have the best track record at the moment.
UPDATE: The FAA just prohibited flying over that airspace. So I would be blown away if your plane continued flying there.
UPDATE: Air France now, too.
UPDATE: Even three Russian airlines are re-routing, which will be difficult for some flights heading west from Moscow. No word from Malaysian... they've probably got bigger fish to fry at the moment.
Fuel savings coupled with a reasonable belief that no party in the conflict would've been expected to want to incur the international wrath resulting from shooting down an airliner.
Anytime there is a incident with a plane the reaction always seems to be intense (bordering on over-reaction) so I seriously doubt any planes will be flying within 100 miles of Ukrainian airspace from this moment forward. I would probably fly if I were you but if you are really worried and can afford not to fly the peace of mind might be worth the loss of $$.
Edit:
Some airlines are already reacting:
"A statement from Virgin Airlines says it "will be re-routing a small number of our flights this evening"."
Statistically, you'll be absolutely fine either way even though I don't buy that "now is the safest time to fly the airline" crap. For myself, having recently flown the reverse flight (KL to Amsterdam) and a handful of other MH flights recently, I would lose the extra money and sleep better on another carrier. I'll be choosing other carriers for the foreseeable future.
Two of only three fatal 777 crashes ever were MH planes. They were both total losses and both in the last five months. The airline has some work to do.
Both? This latest one yeah, but the first one? We don't know anything about the cause yet. I'd also argue that flying over a country where there is war is a bad idea.
Still seems highly risky to fly over a known battle-zone where similar planes (albeit, military) have been shot down recently where direct communication with troops on the ground may not be possible (opening a door for an accidental grounding, if not on purpose).
You're still safer on that airliner than you are in your own bed. Anything newsworthy is rare by definition. If you want to worry, worry about getting hit by a drunk driver as you cross the street, or slipping in the shower and breaking your skull, or choking on your dinner.
As has been explained before, when you're carrying out your normal daily activities you have a fair degree of control over your own safety and a sense of autonomy, plus there's a reasonable chance of being rescued/assisted in many contexts (eg if you are hit by a car on a busy street). When you're a passenger on a plane, you are largely helpless in the event that trouble strikes, however remote that possibility, and the probability of rescue is virtually nil. People's risk calculus is rationally altered by their aversion to helplessness and their wish to avoid stress.
Addressing first-order probabilities only provides half the picture.
The whole point of addressing first-order probabilities is to attempt to overcome that altered risk calculus. I'm not ignoring it, I'm directly attacking it.
Then you're doomed to frustration, because it is rational to alter your risk calculus to minimize stress. The cost to most people of altering their plans (eg choosing a different carrier when they fly) is less than the cost of anxiety or stress alleviation.
It's also rational to minimize stress by convincing yourself that the risk is actually low.
The dude asked for a rational perspective. I gave it. If you want to insist that people should avoid one of the safest activities in the history of civilization because it's rational to avoid fear, well, go for it, but you're not going to convince me.
Saying that it might be rational for someone to change their flight to a different carrier is a long way from 'insisting' that they don't fly. What a ridiculous straw man argument.
To me, logic says you should call the airline and see specifically how they're rerouting the flight to avoid this kind of danger. If you can't get an answer, don't get a satisfactory answer, or don't know how to tell what answer would satisfy you, book another flight.
In general, flying is safer than either driving or walking in urban areas. But most flights don't happen over not-technically-but-actually-definitely war zones. So ... make sure whatever flight you're on avoids the area entirely.
Logic says that, but somehow I doubt that you're going to get a useful answer from anyone you can reach about what route the flight is actually going to take 10 days from now.
I would attempt to get a refund since you have a legit concern. A forward thinking manager might avoid the potential PR problem that lightning will strike twice and on top of that, denying concerned passengers refunds.
If the plane was shot down over a very volatile region, I highly doubt there is any reassurance extra monitoring would do to provide for a plane's safety against surface to air missiles.
The change will be to monitor what is the "very volatile region", and to stay out of it. That will dramatically increase safety against surface to air missiles.
Staying out of the region would be the most sensible thing to do. I didn't read anything that mentioned avoidance as a precautionary step, albeit the most logical of precautionary steps.
It would be useful for someone who knows to confirm whether after an incident like this, airlines change the route that they send the planes. Taking a bit of a detour would seems sensible.
I think you shouldn't have too much to worry about because all international flights over this area will probably get re-routed for a while in the next few hours/days.
Regardless of what caused this plane to go down, how Malaysia Airlines survives as a company going forward will be study in crisis management for many years.
Passenger planes fly over Iraq and Afghanistan regularly, without incident. There was not much reason to believe Ukraine or the rebels would be idiotic enough to target civilian passenger planes in this manner.
News is reporting that US and UK airlines were strongly advised to avoid the area entirely, so that's just not true.
As a point of irritation, I can't believe that of all the controversial opinions I've voiced on this website, "planes shouldn't fly over war zones" is being downvoted as the pinnacle of stupidity.
During the hard times of the war no commercial planes flew over Irak or Afghanistan. There is no problem flying through zones with low capability insurgency, it's done all the time. But given the high tension nature ofthe Ukranian conflict it just doesn't make sense to fly over that areas.
I recently flew to Moscow and our route was quite far to the north, but I would have changed it if necessary. It's a pilot's decission, but also a flight planer and Chief pilot hands to modify dangerous routes.
Except they just shot down a plane on Monday (not civilian, I know) and they've been bragging about having the Buk missiles since two weeks ago. Given these are just amateur morons equipped with very advanced missile systems, trusting that said amateurs would not target civilian planes or misidentify them seems like a huge blunder by all relevant aviation authorities.
It has been empirically shown that the only thing Lehman Brothers lacked was a good Twitter response time. If they had been on the ball they would not have gone bankrupt.
"Near Torez (city) an An-26 airplane was just shot down, it crashed somewhere beyond "Progress" mine site. We warned beforehand - do not fly over "our zone". Here's another video proof of the next "birdfall". A birdie crashed down beyond terricon (mine excavation site), missed living areas. Population not harmed. We also allegedly have info on another SU-25 shot down".
If that's true, they have mistaken it for a transport plane and shot it down.
Well, we actually do, really. The French government refused for 30 years to have their pilots interviewed about the issue, relenting only very recently. They even deployed a cover operation to take charge of recovering the relic and mislead investigators. NATO actively impeded investigation at various points, quoting secrecy rules etc etc. The Italian military miraculously "failed" to keep proper records of their radars, and the government actively misled investigators and the public at the time.
It's now widely accepted that the Itavia 870 was downed by a NATO plane, likely French, likely engaged in some sort of anti-Lybic operation.
Yes, but I meant, with all the details, and with all the nations involved taking their own responsibilities.
Who knows, maybe in 50 years they will unveil the state secrecy and we'll know it for sure..
This airliner was flying at a nice cruising altitude of 10,000m - the man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS [1]) that the systems you linked to can't easily lock-on to planes that high (only about 6,000m according to the wiki), because they rely on infrared tracking of the plane's engines and exhaust. The defensive systems you listed work by shooting out flares that confuse infrared tracking systems, I believe.
It's more likely that this plane was shot down by a radar-guided system like the BUK [2], at least one of which was captured by Ukrainian separatists recently.
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 280 passengers and 15 crew onboard went down over Shakhtyorsk, Ukraine 50 kilometers (20 miles) from the Russo-Ukrainian border on July 17, an aviation industry source said, Interfax reported. The Ukrainian Interior Ministry said that pro-Russia separatists shot it down with a 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile system, while separatist leader Alexander Borodai accused Kiev's forces of shooting down the plane, Reuters reported. Kiev previously designated the areas of fighting in the east an "anti-terrorist operation" zone, limiting civilian flights to 7,900 meters (23,000 feet) and in compliance the flight was at 10,000 meters (33,000).
There was a call for a No Fly Zone over Donetsk on June 2nd[1], but it doesn't appear to have been implemented. Still, that should have been a warning to all airlines to steer clear.
I wouldn't want to blame Malaysia Airlines for this one, but I feel like the route planning tools should include indicators for all known active combat zones with the option to navigate around them.
As usual, we should wait for the results of official investigation. Right now all versions are equally possible: ground-to-air missile from either side, malfunctioning air-to-air missile on a fighter jet, UFO, ...
As many correctly pointed out, there is a civil war going on in this region. These days the military war also means propaganda war. Thus, there will be all kind of statements by "officials". Unless you want to join the propaganda war yourself, I would suggest that you do not repeat this crap and wait for investigation results.
5th hull-loss and 2nd crash with fatalities for 777.
EDIT: I am not saying that 777 should withstand SAM attack. However these numbers are remarkable and show the reliability of the plane that have been in operations for almost 20 years and flew in all corners of the world.
I guess people misunderstand my comment - I am not saying 777 (or any other plane) can withstand the SAM. It's remarkable that in almost 20 years in operations all over the world, only a very small number of planes have been lost.
Other than the unsolved MH370 crash, I don't think the B777 has ever had a fatal crash that wasn't pilot error (Asiana crash at SFO). It's probably the safest passenger aircraft ever built.
Didn't someone ask a question about flying over warzones on here recently? Seems like everyone told them not to worry, Manpad's can't reach a commercial airliner, so you have nothing to worry about. Ironic.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you -- from the actual track record[1], it looks like the middle of the country, rather than near the border. It's not even over one of the "troubled" eastern regions, nowhere near "rebels" or Russian troops.
Mh, ok, apologies - i trusted the pic rather than the report. The pic shows a position well outside the Donetsk area.
Still, it's weird that the last tracked position shown on that pic is to the West of Donetsk and very much outside the troubled area, but the reported crash site is just to the East of Donetsk, deep into "rebel" territory. Could that be an artifact of the tracking system?
How is this on page 3 with 344 points 4 hours in? Which moderator killed this? If this isn't news that people would want to know about I don't know what is.
So, Hacker News is not a "pure" news source. It's primarily tech news. Don't look for a conspiracy, as it's completely up to the moderators as to what stays on the front page. Effectively, it's curated. I like the mix here. Not everything has to be covered by a popular "news" site.
I would say that AvHerald (and Simon Hradecky) are known for being very technically accurate in reporting aviation events. Simon does not go for speculation or hyperbole.
Wouldn't someone who agrees have come to a similar conclusive action as well? I for one discovered this story because it was on HN, so i am happy it made it here.
Thank you. The story has been removed from the frontpage at least. Worth the downvotes if I've given attention to the 'flag' option to even a few people.
At the time the plane lost contact, Singapore Air had other flights near the MH flight, as did other airlines. Not sure MH can be blamed for that as they aren't the only airline flying in the area.
Malaysia Airlines is a respected, professional airline. We have no idea what happened to either flight, and it's rather unfair to suggest Malaysia Airlines should be "shut down."
We definitely have a pretty good idea what happened to this one.
I don't think they should be shut down at all, just stating. Both /seem/ to have been mostly out of the control of the airline, aside from flying over the area, which MH isn't the only one doing.
The reaction of "WTF, they shouldn't be flying over a war zone" only requires knowing that the plane was actually flying over a war zone, which is undisputed. It doesn't actually require this crash to be a result of that, it's merely a trigger for discussion and observation.
> Malaysia Airlines is a respected, professional airline.
Okay.
>On Friday, Malaysia Airlines CEO released some new information that could bolster the fire theory. Four days after denying that the plane had carried any hazardous materials, the CEO admitted that it was carrying a shipment of lithium-ion batteries in its cargo hold.
Also please don't call a company professional if it's sending planes over war zone with 200+ people on board.
Is Lufthansa a professional airline? Singpore Airlines? British Airways? They, along with virtually every airline, have all been routing flights through this part of Ukrainian airspace.
Then again, perhaps your casual association of Malaysian airline officials with "ex-cab drivers" tells us all we need to know about your biases here.
You believe that Malaysia Airlines should know within about 90 minutes whether one of their planes was shot down by a surface-to-air missile?
Do you believe United Airlines would know such a thing?
Air France did not know what happened to AF447 for several years until the wreckage was found.
No airlines are in a position to investigate the cause of their crashes. These tasks fall to national agencies, such as the NTSB in the United States.
Airlines neither manufacture their jets, nor have access to all the territory they fly over. They merely operate them.
Unless you can point to some exceptional flaw in the management of Malaysia Airlines, it's absurd to suggest a well-respected airline should be shut down.
Well one of them happened literally minutes ago in a country at war currently. I think it's a little bold to expect them to immediately know why this place crashed.
I don't think any commercial airliners fly at "30K". The last updates from Flight Aware show the airliner at 33,000 ft or about 10 km, which is a pretty standard cruising altitude.
Ukraine has previously closed all airspace over the east of the country to civilian flights.
I know that lynch mobs form very quickly online, especially to attack unpopular people, but in this case, the responsibility of directing a civilian plane into closed airspace over a rebel-held region where a vicious battle with tanks, airplanes, and artillery has raged for months is shared between two parties: the Ukrainian air traffic control (the airplane crossed the length of the country before being shot down) and the pilots.
Now, these rebels may be the worst people in the world since Cain - I am not taking up the politics of this at all - but even if they did shoot this plane down, they acted reasonably given their military situation: they have no aviation of their own and they are bombed frequently by Ukrainian jets, while no civilian traffic has flown anywhere near them since April.
Edit: it occurs to me that you might legitimately not understand the downvotes. TWA 800 was the center of a lot of conspiracy theories about it being shot down by a US Navy missile, up to and including purported eyewitness accounts of a missile plume. Drawing the comparison between what looks likely to be a shootdown and a relatively mundane fuel tank explosion that spawned lots of conspiracy theories about a shootdown is a good way to sound like a conspiracy nut.
I recall the conspiracies got a lot of attention at the time, but I'm sure it all depends on how old you are and what you were actually watching, listening to, or reading.
That popped into my head as soon as I saw this story as I was reading about TWA 800 recently. Strange coincidence considering how rare an event this is.
It never ceases to surprise me how Americans can turn any international story into one about America or how it somehow links to an American event.
The TWA incident couldn't be less similar to this or have any real similarities at all. They both involve aircraft crashes, granted, but that is as far as it goes.
Oh and before you claim you weren't trying to Americanify this incident let me point out that there have been four commercial airline crashes on July 17th. TWA 800 is not even the most recent.
July 17th 2007 – TAM Airlines Flight 3054, an Airbus A320, crashes at Congonhas-São Paulo Airport, Brazil, killing all 187 people on board and 12 on the ground. Yet you bring up one from 1964, why is that?
You're an ass. Nobody is trying to "Americanify" the event. They are simply remembering another event that is linked to the current one by coincidence. The anti-American knee-jerk reaction is 10x worse than any "Americanification".
Then why didn't they bring up one of the three other events, including more recent ones? Those also share that same coincidence.
It is clear that the only point in bringing up a plane crash in the 1960s as opposed to any of the others (including more recent ones, see 2007) was to make it more relevant to Americans.
Is it really an "anti-American knee-jerk" for calling people out for clearly trying to take international events and to twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents? It happens all the freaking time on here, and it is often by the same nationality trying to turn everything into a "well how does this apply to America?"
The TWA 800 plane crash referred to by the OC happened in 1996 (not in the 1960s). So a lot of Americans have memories of that event as well as the aftermath (which dragged on for years).
> twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents
Again, not really sure why this offends you so much. There may not be a lot of value in pointing out this particular coincidence, but it's certainly not intended to pull attention from the tragedy that just occurred. It's just...conversation. Isn't that why we're here on HN?
A defence expert has told the BBC that shooting down a plane at 10,000m (9.7 miles) would have required a long- range surface-to-air missile - possibly guided by radar.
That suggests it is unlikely it could have been downed by a portable air defence missile, or Manpad, which has a much shorter range.
The only other possibility is for an aircraft at that height to be downed by a fighter carrying air-to-air missiles.
The US will have access to satellite imagery that should be able to identify ultra-violet plumes if a long-range surface-to-air missile was fired.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28354856
Edit:
Amateur video reportedly showing aftermath of the crash (from a distance):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/malaysia-...